Pages

Thursday, December 31, 2015

My choice for book of the year isn't going to be controversial. The obvious winner is Between the World and Meby Ta-Nehisi Coates.

This book is a great rebuttal to Jews who believe we hold a monopoly on suffering and show zero sympathy to black people who currently endure struggles that are categorically similar to the struggles we once endured in Europe. (No, I don't mean the Holocaust. Jewish European history didn't start in the 1930s)

Some of the similarities include the inability to get justice from the courts, and the way local civil authorities act as enemies rather than protectors. Also, while we tend to focus on the intellectual superstars we produced in Europe, shtelt Jews were very much an underclass, with all that entails. Hitler didn't have to work very hard to convince white Europeans that we were a sort of subhuman. The idea was already firmly rooted in the European consciousness. I don't think its much of a stretch to say that black - especially third and fourth generation American blacks - are likewise viewed by many as something of a inferior species.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

On Twitter I saw a Richard Dawkins acolyte announce that the hijab and the confederate flag are more or less the same, in that both symbolize oppression and subjugation. I objected on the grounds that lots of woman choose to wear hijabs (or wigs and snoods if they are Jewish) while no blacks choose to display the stars and bars. This tells us that woman don't see their religious head covering in the same way that blacks see the confederate flag. (As a result of this remark, I suddenly found myself with loads of new Muslim Twitter followers.)

It comes down to this: All meaning is personal and subjective. Demanding that a woman see her head covering in the way that you happen to see it, is almost as offensive as demanding that she wear one in the first place. Lots of women find significance in their head coverings, and choose to wear them as a result, and you don't get to define its meaning on their behalf.

Member of the Council of Torah Sages the Gaon Rabbi David Cohen, Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron told the conference that "when woman study in these institutions [academic], their husband became just another kollel guy* and she becomes the 'prestigious one', she becomes the leader, she gets the titles, she is thescholar,, the whole image/makeup of the house changes".

(*my contextual translation)

Was it ever really in the bag?

Fred MacDowell pointed out on FB: "That implies that the secular dudes who go to college are the "chashuv" ones more than the kollel guys" ....... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It is also interesting to note how far off the radar Israeli Charedi leadership is from American Charedim. Here there is a debate now about women studying rabbinic beyond any academic pursuits, In Israel the fight is about women studying anything beyond culinary pursuits.
Text here
Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Is it time the Charedi world, and others for that matter, consider the unfortunate impacts of old age on people's minds, even of a once brilliant and popular leader?

Below is a very recent conversation between Rabbi Aron YL Shteinman and an 'avrech'. Rough translation below.

A kolel guy asked him why his wife cant get a degree since they need income, the
rabbi asked why do you need income, the fellow responded to be able to live
comfortably (to get by) – the rabbi responds: I have a better idea how to live
comfortably: steal....the guy asks are women studying academics really worse
than stealing? So the rabbi responds it is worse, since with stealing you can
repent and return the money, a woman getting a degree is not something she can
repent from

UPDATE: goes without saying this line of argument was obviously tongue in cheek

Sunday, November 22, 2015

In his new Cross Currents post Yitzhak Alderstein inadvertently declares his opposition to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, accountants, and bookkeepers.

Because just as he would never "entrust a nidah question to someome who could not independently study a Chavos Daas, or a Sidrei Taharah" Alderstein should be unwilling to let anyone aside from an M.D diagnose and treat his strep throat. Also, he should be unwilling to allow anyone other than a highly trained tax attorney from a big firm to sign off on his annual return.

However, if he agrees that insisting on a superbly-qualified expert for every single case is overkill in medical and financial situations, perhaps it's time for him to wrap his head around the idea that it might also be overkill in certain halachick situations.

Do I need smikha to confirm that pig is treif? Of course not. In the same way, a yoetzet halacha does not need smikha and years of training to properly handle the abundance of rote, mundane nidda questions she will encounter. And just as the PA brings the unusual issues he encounters to a supervising MD, the Yoetzek can bring unusual issues to a Rabbi.

For Veterans Day lets remember Maurice Rose, and the other 550,000 Jews who served in the armed forces of the United States during WWII

Major General Rose was the son of a Rabbi and the highest ranking Jew in the U.S army. He died leading his men at Paderman. Let's also remember the three WWII era Jewish soldiers who were awarded the military's highest distinction, the Congressional Medals of Honor - Ben Salomon, Isadore S. Jachman, and Raymond Zussman

Nowadays, we tend to forget about the rich Jewish life that existed in pre-war America, and we write out of existence Jewish American heroes like Rose who, also, were victims of the Nazis.

Like most 21st century rabbis, Rabbi Student does none of those things... yet he still gets to sit on the RCA and call himself a Rabbi and he is afforded these privileges simply by virtue of the fact that he completed a course of study and passed a test. So why can't a woman who also does none of those things likewise enjoy the privilege of joining the RCA and using a title provided she finished the same course of study and passed the same test?

Or to quote a Facebook friend: "Today we have watered down "semikhah" to being nothing more than a certificate of completion. Outside those who get it due to yichus or paying off the right people. Men are getting it after doing online coursework and don't become rebbeim, pulpit rabbis, Dayanim poskim or sometimes even decent Jews. If that's all it means anymore then how do you argue against giving THAT to a women?"

UPDATE:

A rumor is going around that Gil Student holds private smikha, which may mean something awesome, but likely does not - and because its "private" we'll never know.

Why can't a women get the same credential?

So long as she never exercises religious authority or serves as a dayan what's the problem?

If a man who has nothing better than "private smikha" - or worse, online smikha, or some other watered down facsimile of smikha - can join the RCA and carry himself as a Rabbi with all the rights and privileges thereof, why can't a woman pull the same stunt?

Monday, November 09, 2015

Man, I hate that the War on Christmas seems to start earlier every year. When I was a kid, the war never started until December. Anyway, three cheers for the dirty hippies who launched the preemptive counterattack shown below

Thursday, November 05, 2015

Special thank you to our friends at the New York Times for excluding Batei Din (that's the plural of Bes Din) from their long, incriminating discussion of religious tribunals. It feels sort of nice to know that the Christian version of the Bes Din is every bit as corrupt, unreliable and unfair as the real thing, and I was very glad that the Times didn't embarrass us by including any examples of actual Bes Din malfeasance in the article

Check out these pictures of a Hasidic elementary school reenacting the wedding of Rivka and Issac and pity the poor little boys who were assigned the role of women. Those of you with no local hasidim may not realize it, but this reenactment is an annual event and beloved tradition. God only knows why. It's survival is a mystery right up there with our ongoing insistence on telling little kids that "Rivka was three when she got married" when so many more palatable interpretations are available.

Wednesday, November 04, 2015

I'm probably reading this wrong, but it sounds like Gil Student is arguing in his Haaretz op-ed that smart OJ women shouldn't care that they can't be Rabbis because the synagogue is so last century. He writes:

"The synagogue is the most visible symbol of Judaism but also the weakest form of religious experience. To an outside observer, the goings on of a synagogue seem like the most exciting part of Jewish life but insiders recognize this as a misunderstanding. [SNIP] This focus on synagogue roles is tragically ironic in the Internet age. While our society is decentralizing, we dare not elevate the brick and mortar aspects of religion"

But if that's true, why does Gil bother to identify himself as Rabbi? If the title is worth so little, why does he use it? And by that logic, why do we need male Rabbis?

The answer, of course, is the title is valuable. It commands respect. It opens doors. Moreover, there are many teaching and communal positions that are either open to Rabbis only, or offer better pay to men who have received smicha.

Why should a capable woman be denied a valuable credential - and the career opportunities that come with it - simply on the basis of her gender? We wouldn't allow a Ph.D or M.D program to withhold their degree from women. What's different about a rabbinical degree? Even if you argue that women can't lead synagogue, it doesn't follow logically that they must therefore be prevented from earning a degree that will other doors for them

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

I keep hearing people say this about Open Orthodoxy, and while I admit the analogy has its appeal, I am not sure its accurate.

The comparison rests on the understanding that the original Hasidim came not to destroy or undermine traditional, rabbinic Judaism but to revitalize it. The original Hasidim saw themselves as marginalized outsiders, with their religious needs left unfulfilled by the establishment insiders. When someone says that the OO are like the Hasidim, they are likely thinking of how the first Hasidim made Judaism accessible and meaningful for unschooled peasants. In their eyes, OO is attempting something similar when it reshapes Orthodoxy so that it can offer more to 21st century women.

The crucial difference, however, is that the original Hasidim were unquestionably operating from within a rabbinic context, and their most radical ideas could be sourced - however speciously - to an unquestionable authority (the Ari) and an unquestionably authoritative book (the Zohar). Meanwhile OO, in its most threatening expressions, looks like nothing more than a Jewish flavor of feminism. While rabbis of the 18th century may have been slow/unwilling to attack the Ari, the rabbis of our day have no such compunctions about attacking Gloria Steinem.

I don't know how to pinpoint the difference between a reformer and a revitalizer. Every reformer - from Jan Huss to Abraham Geiger - thinks he's fixing something old, rather than creating something new. And the opponents of reform, always say "what we have is just fine, by fixing it you're actually breaking it." We don't know yet how OO will be viewed in the light of history. If they are remembered as reviterlizers they are indeed the new Hasidim; however, I think its far more likely they will be remembered as reformers. Time will tell.

Monday, November 02, 2015

"On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday Boehner said he invoked God to persuade his fellow Catholic from refusing to run for speaker to agreeing to do so.Boehner says he told Ryan: "'This isn't about what you want to do. It's about what God wants you to do. And God has told me, he wants you to" run for speaker"

In a saner world, people who claim God speaks to them would be receiving mental care. not finishing up a term in Congress.

ALTERNATIVE AND MORE LIKELY POSSIBILITY: Boehner knows God didn't speak to him. This is just propaganda designed to impress the rubes, including (unfortunately) some of my fellow Jews are no doubt pleased to learn of Bone-heads "spirituality".

Jews should not be playing the same sort of dishonest games that Palestinians play. An example comes from a post spotted this morning, on MY RIGHT WORD. (see it here)

---- TEXT OF THE POST ----

Stories of a Fake 'Palestinian' Narrative

Rachel's Tomb, Bethlehem, a century ago:-

[Photo of the Tomb in Ruins]

Notice the heavily populated and constructed Arab town of Bethlehem.

---- TEXT OF THE POST ----

Clearly the writer is attempting to imply that the Arab town of Bethlehem didn't exist and he is attempting to do this via an out of context photo. In reality, the Arab town of Bethlehem was just down the road, and you can see from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUjB_lGmtw (shot about 12 years after the photo was taken) that the town was both "populated and constructed"

We object when Arabs tell these types of lies. We should object when Jews do it, too.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

In yesterday's installment, I discussed the first of the two pressing questions Agudah will address at their upcoming convention (Why Do People Go OTD?) and told you what you will - and will not - hear from the panel. Today, we look at the second question:What can we do about it?

The *real answer*: Stop thinking of the OTD as people who have lost an essential aspect of their humanity. Just as the bike club wouldn't radically change its view of a member who decided to try Judo, we shouldn't start making assumptions about the character, personality and mental health of people who are tired of shabbos rules and dietary restrictions. A guy who has left the bike club has only left the bike club. He hasn't metamorphosized into the sort of person you need to warn your kids about. He isn't suddenly damaged gods.

Instead let's follow the fine example of Isaiah Berlin (an OTD Jew himself), who said: "I believe that there is a plurality of values which men can and do seek, and that these values differ. There is not an infinity of them: the number of human values, of values that I can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human character, is finite -- let us say 74, or perhaps 122, or 26, but finite, whatever it may be. And the difference it makes is that if a man pursues one of these values, I, who do not, am able to understand why he pursues it or what it would be like, in his circumstances, for me to be induced to pursue it. Hence the possibility of human understanding." (In the first comment I explain why this is not moral relativism)

The *expected* Agudah answers: Show them how lovely Judaism is, open your house for shabbos, familiarize yourself with cheap kiruv tricks and find situations to employ them,etc. Aside for the last item on the list, this is all good stuff so long as it's not done in a condescending fashion. The fact that you keep kosher or shabbos doesn't, in of itself, make you a better person. It makes you someone who is pursuing a particular set of legitimate human values, and there is no reason to look down on someone who, for reasons of his own, decides another set of legitimate human values are a better match for his temperament. To see ourselves and the OTD in this light may require some reorientation, but is we're serious about achdus, understanding and continuity its an effort worth making.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Agudah is promising to reveal "Why People Go OTD" at their big convention this December, but attending will cost you several hundred dollars, plus time that might be better spent watching football. DovBear to the rescue! Let me spare you the trouble of going by telling you what you will - and will not - hear.

Why Do People Go OTD?

The *real* answer: People leave Orthodox Judaism for one over-riding reason: They go because the various rituals and observances have lost their significance. No one spends a lot of money, doing things that look and feel foolish, unless there is some payout. That payout can take many forms, and it can be psychological, social, or emotional. But if the payout is not there, you go OTD. What kills the payout? Any number of different combinations of different things. Too many to count, in fact.

The *expected* Agudah answers: Mental illness, a desire to rebel, a desire for sex and drugs, bad friends, bad relatives, a taste of pork during childhood, an immodest mother, a father who bad-mouthed rabonim, that time Cousin Gary took you to a movie, and so on.

Now *some* of the things Agudah is expected to finger are payout murderers. For example, if you grew up in a house where shabbos was denigrated and Rabbis were insulted you probably won't become the sort of adult who gets the warm-fuzzies from observing and obeying. But those payout murderers are contributing factors, not the final straw. Moreover, its impossible to say that what I am calling "payout murderers" will inevitably lead you to go OTD. We all know of siblings who grew up in the same house, with the same upbringings, yet ended up in very different Jewish places.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Is being Jewish meaningful without a belief in Judaism? A
conversation I had with a friend over Shabbos got me thinking about this. He
said that he's unsure of the validity of many of Judaism's claims, up to and including the existence of God, but
that it's important to him that his kids have strong Jewish feelings and an attachment to Judaism and being Jewish.

I've often seen frum people claim that without the religious
component, being Jewish is meaningless. I can see where they're coming from.
What it means to be Jewish has, for most of the history of the Jewish people,
been shaped by Judaism. Religious rules shaped our culture, influenced our
values, is a large part of what kept us
distinct from the larger non-Jewish populations in which we lived, and even
defined who was and wasn't Jewish. But being Jewish is about more than that. It
is an identity that is separate from and transcends the religious rules that
shaped it.

I'm an American, and I have deep feelings for my country.
There's something stirring about seeing Old Glory snapping in the wind,
something moving about quintessentially American songs like God Bless America, My Country 'Tis of Thee, and The
Battle Hymn of the Republic, or even those that have become children's
songs, like Yankee Doodle and When Johnny Comes Marching Home. I believe
in the Enlightenment principles on which this country was founded and am proud
that we were the first nation to form a government on those principles, however
poorly we have adhered to them at times.

Despite my being radically different from many Americans in
some ways, in others we have much in common. We share many aspects of American
culture and many of the same assumptions about the way things should be. Even
the most bitter of disagreements about values and policies are framed by those
shared assumptions. We share, among other things, a degree of attachment to and
pride in our country matched by few other nations around the world.

I'm also a skeptic and a history buff, and I'm well aware
that America's founding myths are just that. Myths, often exaggerated and
ahistorical stories about our origins that tell of larger-than-life figures doing
great deeds. The Pilgrims did not land at Plymouth rock and came here not so
much in the pursuit of religious freedom as in the pursuit of the freedom to
persecute those who disagreed with their religion. George Washington was a great
leader of men who turned down a crown in accordance with his beliefs in the
principles of democracy, but he was also ambitious, self-promoting, and a lousy
tactician. The colonies went to war with Britain over taxes, but it was triggered
as much by the British reducing tariffs,
thereby causing the bottom to drop out of the lucrative smuggling business of some prominent and influential American shipping
magnates as it was about the Crown taxing colonists who had no voice in Parliament.

Yet despite my recognition that America's founding myths are
not true, despite even recognizing that the United States has many, many flaws,
my identity as an American is of great value to me. It informs who I am and connects
me to a group of people, past, present, and future, with whom I share values,
ideals, and a group identity. It allows me to feel pride in the accomplishments
of my countrymen, and motivates me to address my country's flaws. My identity as
an American is separate from and transcends the mythos that shaped the American
consciousness.

So too my identity as a member of the Jewish people. There's
something moving about the Jewish traditions that bind us together as a people.
Despite being different from many Jews is some ways, there are cultural
constants that we can all relate to. The Jewish people have had a pride in
their Jewish identity and a tenacity matched by few others. My identity as a
Jew informs who I am, allows me to feel pride in the accomplishments of my
fellow Jews, motivates me to address our flaws, connects me to the sorrow of
our national tragedies, and makes me a
part of our long, long history.

This all despite my rejection of the truth of the mythology
that shaped much of that history.

Being Jewish is meaningful, with or without a belief in
Judaism. It is meaningful as an identity. It is meaningful as a shared heritage,
as a connection to the past which brought us to where we are today. It is as meaningful
as a connection to all the other people who have identified as members of the
Jewish people, past, present, and future. Without religion, being Jewish is not
meaningful in a metaphysical sense, but so what? Meaning is what we make it, and
to me, identifying with other people who share my unique heritage, and with the
three-thousand-plus years of Jewish history, is even more meaningful than being one of God's
Chosen People.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Here's the best gematriah ever. In Lech Lecha, Abraham famously takes 318 men to go fight the four kings who have kidnapped his nephew. Our Rabbis were troubled by this for reasons I'll discuss in a different post, and some famously suggested that the 318 men were actually Eliezer alone.

What's less well known is the Church fathers also found the verse disturbing and their solution is no less astounding. They argued:

THE TAU

Tau (the Greek T) = 300 and looks like a crossEtta and Iota = 18 and are the first two letters in Jesus.

Thus when it says Father Abraham went to war with 318 men it *really* means he took Jesus and the cross!

I say all this only to point out how malleable and flexible (and therefore useless) gematriah is, and also to remind you that it's originally a Greek system that we usurped.

If any of you wish to share this at your Shabbos table when your kid inevitably brings up Eliezer please say it in the name of the person who said it first: Barnabas

For [the Scripture] saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted - Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. (Epistle of Barnabas 9.8

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Please dress appropriately and modestly at all times. Modesty is the mark of a man – your beauty is within. You are like a Prince, a jewel , a diamond, and just like a precious gem, we want to protect you and keep you safe.

Trouser length; some men are not aware that when they sit down their trouser leg might rise up revealing a glimpse of ankle. There are special devices you can use when you try clothes on ensure that this does not happen.

We suggest you shop with a friend who can ensure that your shirt is not too revealing or see through from the back.

Please take special care with your shirt collar; there is a fashion to undo the top button and this could inadvertently reveal a glimpse of chest hair.

Although it is halachically permitted for men to light Shabbat candles, it is not really in keeping with the dignity of the community for men to do so. We suspect too that many men who try to do this are doing it for the wrong reasons.

Similarly with baking challah. This is simply a provocative act aimed at stretching boundaries. If we let men bake challah, where will it lead? Before we know it, they will be wanting to make the cholent too.

Photos of boys (including toddlers) should not be published in newspapers or adverts. This should be the case even when they are dressed modestly as it is not deemed appropriate for women to see photos of small boys.

We urge all men to increase their adherence to modesty/tsnuit laws. The current rise in terrorism in Israel and indeed, anti-Semitism around the world is entirely due to the fact that some men are wearing revealing clothes, trousers that are too tight or have shirt sleeves rolled up too high.

Some modern men seem to be objecting to the morning bracha and complaining that they are not ‘made according to G-d’s will’ like women are. Dear gentlemen, we would like to reassure you that even though you might not be made according to G-d’s will you are just as important as women. Just because you have different roles does not mean that you are not as important. The bracha is not intended to suggest you are less equal than women just because you are not made according to His will.

Please dress appropriately when collecting your children from school. If you must drive (and we believe it is immodest for men to drive) then take care getting out of the car lest your trousers rise up and reveal an ankle. Please make sure that arms are covered to the wrist even in summer – we are seeing more and more hairy wrists on show and this is not acceptable (and probably causes terrorism). Any father not adhering to the modesty rules risks their child being removed.

In terms of family purity, please note that if you suspect that you might have wasted seed during the night, you should take your underwear to your Rebbetzen and she will ascertain its status and whether you need to visit the mikveh (this can be done anonymously or via your wife).

On second thought lets also point some blame at the rabbis who use all of their air time to inveigh against immodest clothing and other invisible threats. Instead of moaning about things that can't be documented to actually cause harm shouldn't they spend a few seconds urging their flocks to vaccinate? I promise you vaccines have saved more lives than long skirts. Compared to the pertussis virus, an uncovered knee is far less of a threat to your health and well being.

This is a genuine pikuach nefesh issue and its being casually ignored by leaders who demand respect on the basis of their alleged wisdom and alleged concern for other people. Well, unless they push their people to vaccinate I call BS on both.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

One of the first Rashis in Noah says "Our Rabbis" thought Noah would have been regarded as perfectly righteous in any generation "while others" say he would have been a nobody in any generation aside for his own.

Yesterday the Rabbi invited us to note Rashis subtly in pointing out the latter view, the one that seems to disparage Noah*, is attributed to ordinary people while it was the Rabbis who embraced the more positive take. He went on to sermonize about how seeing the good in people is a top ten trait.

Only OOPS the view he considers disparaging to Noah is attributed by the Midrash to R. Yehuda and only a quirk in Rashi's style made it seem like one view belonged to rabbis and the other didn't. Also OOPS both views disparage Noah! The second says he wasn't anything special but the first says he could have been special but failed to reach his potential.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

A few words about the famous moon midrash in which God is said to have shrunk the moon down to size after it complained about having to share its domain with the sun.

In my opinion this midrash (found in its entirety on Chulin 60b) is meant to be taken as an explanation for Israels status in the world. Originally Esau and Jacob were twins. So why is Esau now dominant while Jacob is so diminished?

The answer is: Jacob complained. He went to his father with deception and demanded more.

Now it's important to pause for a second to recall how (some of) the Sages understood the drama in Isaac's bedroom. They believed that Isaac planned for the Jewish people to have two rulers: an Esau who looked after the material and a Jacob who managed the spiritual. Jacobs insight was that this would not work. The world can't have two rulers. The sky isn't big enough for two great lights.

In the eyes of those Sages, Jacobs attempt to deliver this message backfired, causing Esau to cry the bitter tears that destroyed two temples. But in the moon midrash they are recasting the error and framing it in more hopeful terms.

As the midrash on Chulin 60b continues, God repents, and compensates the moon for being diminished. The moon is given stars*, and much more. Key among the compensations is a connection to Jacob. "Just as you are called small", God offers in consolation, "Jacob is called small"

The reference is to a passage in Amos that doesn't speak of Jacob the man, but of Jacob the nation; moreover the passage tells us God repented after being reminded by the prophet that "Jacob is small". This parallel with the moon midrash, in which God repents because the moons is small is, I believe, is the key that unlocks the midrash.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

1,658,000: Arab citizens of Israel 2,657,029: Palestinian population of the West Bank4315029: Total 27: Number of terrorist attacks in Israel in 2015

If we assume that 20 people were personally involved in each of those 27 attacks, that means 540 people were involved in terrorist attacks in 2015.

That's .012 percent of the population.

Why am I telling you this? Because people screaming on Facebook about how all Arabs needs to be deported, or about how all the Arabs are gripped with "sick cold hatred and death worship" need to gain some perspective.

There are 5.4 million Jews in the US. .012 percent of 5.4 million is 648.

How would you feel if the other 100 million Americans were making claims and accusations about the Jews and threatening to deport us all based on the behavior of 648 individuals?

Monday, October 12, 2015

I think this short passage provides a great little lesson on how some Midrashim work. The citation, which comes from Psalm 139:17, contains Aramaic expressions and it discusses the creation of Adam. But is R' Judah saying that this linguistic anomaly compels us to believe that Adam spoke Aramaic? Not necessarily.

The suggestion has been made (Soncino ibid note 18) that R' Judah's midrash is actually trying to justify the abandonment by the Babylonian Jews of the Hebrew language in favor of Aramaic.

If this suggestion is correct, then this midrash is not attempting to make a historical claim, nor is it attempting to deliver the sort of silly message that people often attribute to midashim ("Try your best!" or "Everyone makes mistakes!")

Instead, its a straight justification for something the Sage has observed, that may also have been intended as a consolation. Unfortunately, 21st readers are blind to the context and the original intention. As Joyce Carol Oats said, Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions.

Daniel Craig, as Tuvia Bielski, armed with a gun, that for reasons Ben Carson doesn't quite understand, failed to bring the Nazi's to their knees

The problem with Ben Carson's view on Jews, the Holocaust and gun control is more than his blind faith in the specious notion that gun ownership prevents tyranny. I am also annoyed at the insulting suggestion that the Jews were a bunch of mice, who passively marched to their death.

In reality, Jews fought back (with guns!) in the Warsaw Ghetto, among other ghettos, and there were also armed uprisings in the camps themselves. Jews joined the Polish resistance and Tuvia Bielski led a group of Jewish partisans who fought the Nazis and the Soviets (with guns!) in western Belarus.

Of course, all of these armed attempts to beat back the Nazis failed... which rather strongly suggests that Carson's central idea is wrong

Sunday, October 11, 2015

"World is being silent about the bombs in Turkey ! Or are we only supposed to say that about Israel bombs? Confused about the minhag..." -- me on Twitter, today.

There were terrorist attacks today in Turkey and Chad that killed over 100 people. Did the world say anything? Did the Jews? I confess I didn't notice.

What I have noticed, is that many of my friends and coreligionists are furious about an article the Times published yesterday. I didn't think much of the piece when I read it myself, but that Jewish outrage about it seems over-the-top.

For starts, following a necessary and needed correction, its a thousand percent clear that the article is about the scholarly doubt regarding the Temple's precise location on the Mount, and it is not (as everyone is claiming) denying that the Temple actually stood somewhere on the mount.

Second, the article presents paragraphs and paragraphs of corroborating evidence that Temple really did stand on the spot of Dome. Here's the introductory paragraph:

"Many archaeologists agree that the religious body of evidence, corroborated by other historical accounts and artifacts that have been recovered from the site or nearby, supports the narrative that the Dome of the Rock was built on or close to the place where the Jewish temples once stood."

Following this, the Times makes a strong argument that the Temple stood on Mount Moriah exactly where Jews say it did. We're told about the evidence from Josephus, and the discovery of Warning Stone, and the New Testament verses and more, before the article's concludes with this:

"Kent Bramlett, a professor of archaeology and history of antiquity at La Sierra University in Riverside, Calif., said historical records of the destruction committed by the Romans, just by themselves, are “pretty overwhelming” in supporting the existence of the second temple in the immediate vicinity of the Dome of the Rock."

So how can anyone honest or fair make the claim that the Times was trying to deny a Jewish connection to the Mount? At the end of the article it quotes an authority who says the evidence for this connection is "pretty overwhelming"! How can anyone fair or honest claim that the article says there is no proof of Jewish Temples on that Mount? It actually supplies scores of proof!

Unfortunately, this sort of thing - uproar over an article that blatantly misstates what the article actually does - is far too typical of Jewish media criticism.

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

We were eating lunch at 3:00, which was entirely unnecessary given how we stuffed ourselves in shul. Stuffed cabbage. Salami. Nine kinds of kugel. And candy everywhere.

Hey, did anything wild happen in your shul? Other than harrasing the Hasidic old-timers with the singing of the entire Young Israel collection of greatest hits, we were pretty tame. (Side question: Why do Hassidic old timers dislike those tunes so mightily? When you sing "ain kamocha" or "bay ana rochitz" they all behave as if live scorpions were running through the folds of their underwear.)

No one got drunk. The rabbi was a good sport about our singing Israeli folk songs during hallel. (My voice is still scratchy.) And we danced like midevil peasants. So, all in all, it was an excellent chag.Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Friday, October 02, 2015

Who told Slate and the New York Times that the Pope was a perfectly ethical human being? What made them think his positions were always and forever going to match up with theirs? And now that they don't match up - as seen via the audience he gave to that redneck idiot Kim Davis - listen to them whine.

Catch up people. The Pope is a very old man with lots of very old ideas. He's not going to agree with a bunch of smart, young, big-city journalists on every particular. This should not surprise you.

However, I will say this in the defense of the broken-hearted liberals.When their Pope lets them down, they own it. Contrast that with how certain Jewish conservatives behaved after it was discovered that John Paul 2 and Benedict were not going to get listed among the top 100 philo-semites of all time. Instead of giving those Popes the beatings they deserved, our Jewish conservatives doubled down on the love.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Why do those of Hasidic heritage say Hoshanas after hallel? My unscholarly bet is that this spot was chosen for its convenience then an after-the-fact kabalistic justification was created. Can you support or defeat this notion? (Let me help: if you can show that Spanish or Eastern Jews were saying Hoshanas after hallel first the convenience notion is defeated. Hasidim copied lots of presumably exotic seeming foreign customs as a way of rejecting European-style Judaism (in the same way that many American Jews all of a sudden adopted a Sefardi havara) This may have been one of those copied customs.)

----------------

If you want to understand the difference between Hasidic and Litvak shul styles look at how we do Nan'uim*.

Background first:

To its insiders, Hasidic shul style is considered warm, comfortable and homey, while outsiders tend to see it as sloppy and disorganized. Meanwhile, Hasidim say Litvak shul style is rigid and cool, while the actual Litvaks say that structure, order and attention to detail elevate the proceedings.

Now, how do we do Nan'uim?

Hasidim: At some invisible signal, everyone starts shaking their lulav. Everyone completes the ritual at different speeds. The words (Hodu...) are not heard.

Litvaks: The prayer leader goes first, with each word clearly articulated. When he's done, the people perform the ritual, all of them audibly chanting the words, and shaking the lulavs in unison. Everyone says Hodu and shakes the lulav forward at the same time, etc, etc.

* shaking lulav during hallel.

----------------

Why is "Om Ani Choma" the least loved Hoshana? We only say it when Sukkot starts on a Monday. When it starts on any of the three other possible days, we skip "Om". What is the reason?

Will someone please explain to me why it's a violation of the mesorah for a shul to employ a woman who will teach and minister to those who wish to receive whatever she can offer.

Are we just being stupidly hung up on the word rabbi the way that others are stupidly hung up on the word marriage? Enough already. A shul rabbi doesn't have magic powers. A shul rabbi teaches, counsels and comforts. These are all things a woman can do. So let her. If you don't like it just do what Jews who disliked their rabbis have done from the beginning of time: choose a different shul.Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Saturday, September 26, 2015

A guest post by Y. Bloch
Two days from now we will mark the septennial mitzva of Hakhel -- the assembly, the gathering.

No, not that one.

Not that one either.

On
the feast of Booths, at the prescribed time in the year for remission
which comes at the end of every seven-year period, when all Israel goes
to appear before the LORD, your God, in the place which he will choose, you shall read this law aloud in the presence of all Israel. Assemble (Hakhel)
the people -- men, women and children, as well as the resident aliens
who live in your communities -- that they may hear and so learn to fear
the LORD, your God, and to observe carefully all the words of this law. (Deut. 31:10-12)

The Aramaic rendering of Hakhel is Kenosh, the same root as bei kenishta. You may be more familiar with the Hebrew cognate, beit kenesset, or
the Greek-derived equivalent, synagogue. In any case, they all mean the
same thing: gathering-place, house of assembly, locus of coming
together. This is the essence of Jewish prayer and of a Jewish house of
prayer.
In the Talmud (Hagiga 3a), Rabbi Eleazar b.
Azariah famously expounds, "If the men came to learn,the women came to
hear, but wherefore have the little ones to come? In order to grant reward to
those that bring them." But are the children dragged along merely to
give extra credit to their parents, since watermelons rarely throw
tantrums? The biblical commentator Keli Yakar demurs:

I find it untenable, as if he would command them to bear logs and stones to the House of God "in order to grant reward to those that bring them."
Rather, the whole purpose of Hakhel is for renewal (teshuva), as the Sages say (Lev. R. 30:7) that the first day of Sukkot marks the commencement of a new spiritual reckoning...
Now,
when Israel repents, we beg God to forgive our sins, asking for mercy
in the name of our blameless children, if we are undeserving. Thus, we
ask in the prayer Our Father, Our King, "Pity us, our sucklings and our infants," and similarly we ask, "Act for the sake of the little children," etc.

This is what we mean by "in order to grant reward to
those that bring them." They say to God: Act on behalf of these little
ones who have been brought to the House of God! This is similar to what
Joel speaks of (2:16): "Gather the people, sanctify the assembly;
collect the elderly; gather the children, even infants nursing at the
breast; [let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her bridal
tent]."

The message is clear: in a time of crisis, in a time of climax, we belong together. That is why it is so troubling when the beit kenesset
is used to divide rather than unite, to exclude rather than include.
Some flip this argument on its head: children don't belong in synagogue
because they're disruptive, and since men "have to go to shul" and women don't have to, those little ones are the "problem" of the latter.
The
true "problem" here, however, is that this view, while held as
axiomatic by far too many observant Jews, has no basis in the classical
sources:

Communal prayer is always heard. Even when
there are transgressors among them, the Holy One, blessed be He, does
not reject the prayers of the many. Therefore, a person should join
community and should not pray alone whenever it is possible to pray with
the community. (Maimonides, Laws of Prayer 8:1)
One
should endeavor to pray in the synagogue with the community, but if
circumstances prevent one from doing so, one should should specifically
pray at the time the community prays. (Shulhan Arukh, OH 90:9)

Praying
with the community is undoubtedly preferable, but no one calls it a
binding commandment; on the contrary, the likely eventuality that one
may not be able to attend is immediately apparent (considering what
Maimonides says about his own busy schedule, this may be from personal
experience).
Well, OK, maybe it's not a mitzva mitzva,
but still it's a guy thing, right? Actually, Maimonides starts off the
Laws of Prayer (1:1-2) by explicitly stating that women are just as
obligated as men in the biblical command to pray to God daily. Is there a
reason that women should not also avail themselves of the great merit
of communal prayer? A stunning legend told in the midrashic compendium Yalkut Shimoni
(871) talks about a very elderly woman who was kept alive solely by the
merit of attending synagogue at sunrise every morning; without it, she
died within three days. And it's not just haggadic; Rabbi Moses Isserles
writes quite poignantly in a halakhic context (Shulhan Arukh, OH
88:1) about the pain that women feel at being literally shut out from
the High Holiday services in the name of excessive "purity."
Put
simply, is there something different about the female soul? Not
according to our tradition. After all, it's Hannah, mother of Samuel,
whose prayer in the House of God is the template for what we do every
day.
There is no doubt that prayer has evolved over the centuries,
especially in the absence of a Temple. Prayer has been formalized and
regulated by the rabbis. But that cannot touch the essence of God's
command that all seek him in prayer, male and female. In the context of
the month of Tishrei, prayer is in the category of mitzvot equally
binding on man and woman, like repentance, like fasting, like Hakhel itself. Woe to him who makes a daughter of God feel unwelcome in our place of assembly, for it is her house too.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Not one things about this makes me happy. It is beneath the dignity of a Rabbi to let himself be used as a prop in an interfaith pageant. Would the pope - or a cardinal - allow himself to be trotted out to make a show of homage to any Jewish leader? No, of course not. So Jewish self-pride demands that we return the non-favor.

Wait. One thing makes me happy. His talis isn't blue and white and its not being worn like a scarf. So there's that.

More on the case of the sexually active synagogue worker... we've been told by one person (really: one person.) that the pregnant woman had not yet started to show, but was ratted out by a co-worker.

Does the rat still have a job?

Loshon Hara, the Chofetz Chaim says, is a violation of more than 20 Torah laws. (Meanwhile, premarital sex is arguably a violation of zero torah laws and one rabbinic law) If the rat hasn't been fired, is the synagogue telling the world that they support Loshon Hara? What kind of example does this set for the children? How are they supposed to grow up as moral, upstanding citizens if their synagogue leadership is wantonly and perniciously engaged in such shameless sinning? Clearly a powerful message is needed. Otherwise people might not know that this is a pro Torah shul.

Let's hope the shul took a strong stand for morality, values, and the eternal truth of the Torah whose Ways are Pleasant by kicking that rat to the curb, publicly embarrassing her and depriving her and her children of a much needed income! If I discover they put a human being ahead of their reputations I will be very disappointed!

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Meir Solivetchik fired a pregnant woman for having premarital sex, a new lawsuit alleges.

Read about it here: http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/jewish-congregation-nyc-fired-woman-pregnancy-suit-article-1.2370219

Many people are asking the predictable double standard question, ie would a man have been fired for knocking up his girl friend ahead of the wedding, but by my lights that's the wrong double standard question to ask.

The real double standard question is this one: would she have been fired for wearing shatnez or withholding someone's pay or charging interest? Thw answer is "Of course not" despite the fact that as per Jewish law those are all more serious crimes.

Thanks to the negative influence of the evangelicals we are too hung up on sex and this case proves it.

If it relates to Jews, Judaism, holidays, Midrash,Torah, halacha or anything similar, I probably have a post on it. And if I have a post on it, I probably have a good comment thread with great reader-provided information, too.

Try a search and see for yourself. If you can't find what you're looking for ask me.

Quotes

רֹאשׁ דְּבָרְךָ אֱמֶת קוֹרֵא מֵרֹאשׁ דּוֹר וָדוֹר עַם דּוֹרֶשְׁךָ דְּרֹשׁ
Your chief word is "truth"; You've called it out since the beginning. In each generation people interpret You [for themselves] and find [their own] meaning.

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd. -Flannery O'Connor

“When in the afterglow of religious insight I can see a way that is good for all humans as it is for me—I will know it is His way.” - R. Abraham Joshua Heschel

I don't accept at all the quite popular argument that the press is responsible for the monarchy's recent troubles. The monarchy's responsible for the monarchy's recent troubles. To blame the press is the old thing of blaming the messenger for the message. -Anthony Holden

Said behind my back

"...he's trying to show that there are other facets to Orthodox Judaism. That we don't all think one way and vote one way. And he's occasionally entertaining when he's not being mean-spirited" [PsychoToddler]"

"He's witty. He's funny. He appreciates the ridiculous in life, and has no qualms about telling you when he thinks that you're being a moron" [Cara]

" I'm pretty sure [DovBear] is a really great guy who just wants to be able to ask questions and talk about things without the fear of someone claiming he's off the derech or on his way there." [Chaviva]